The future of human rights protection in the new Libya: prospects and challenges. Jean Monnet Occasional Paper No. 6/2014

There is no doubt that demand for the respect of human rights was one of the factors behind the Arab Spring and Libya is no exception. Four decades of absolute dictatorship headed by Muammar Gaddafi had been further tainted with gross violations of human rights of Libyan citizens and restrictions on their basic freedoms. Before the revolution, Libya was a country where no political parties were allowed. Freedom of expression and the press were extremely restricted. Reports about the country’s human rights violations published by a number of international organizations documented large scale human rights abuses at the hands of the Gaddafi regime. The 17 February 2011 revolution in Libya led to a turning point in the country’s history. The regime of Muammar Gaddafi which had dominated the country since 1969 eventually collapsed, leading to the beginning of the painful task of reconciliation and state building. Nonetheless it is estimated that more than 7000 prisoners are held captive by various militias and armed groups without due process. This in addition to thousands of internally displaced persons. State building involves the consolidation of a democratic state based on a democratic constitution. In 2011, a constitutional declaration was adopted to replace the one that had been in effect since 1969. This was intended as a stop-gap solution to allow the new political forces unleashed in the country time to write a new democratic constitution. To help consolidate the democratic state, three elements are required: that human rights be placed at its core; that these rights are truly implemented and applied; and lastly that the independence of the judiciary is safeguarded. For all this to happen it is also essential to strengthen education on human rights by encouraging non-governmental organizations to take a stronger role in promoting human rights. Libyan citizens can only avail themselves of these rights and strengthen their implementation if they know what they are and how they can benefit from their implementation

Access to Electronic Data by Third-Country Law Enforcement Authorities, Challenges to EU Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. Center for European Policy Studies, 2015

This study examines the challenges posed to European law by third country access to data held by private companies for the purposes of law enforcement. It pays particular attention to the implications for rule of law and fundamental rights of foreign authorities’ direct access to electronic information falling outside pre-established channels of supranational cooperation. A special focus is given to EU-US relations and the practical issues emerging in transatlantic relations covering mutual legal assistance and evidence gathering for law enforcement purposes in criminal proceedings.

An EU mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 91/April 2016 Thursday, 21 April 2016

The European Union is founded on a set of common principles of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union. Whereas future Member States are vetted for their compliance with these values before they accede to the Union, no similar method exists to supervise adherence to these foundational principles after accession. EU history proved that this ‘Copenhagen dilemma’ was far from theoretical. EU Member State governments’ adherence to foundational EU values cannot be taken for granted. Violations may happen in individual cases, or in a systemic way, which may go as far as overthrowing the rule of law. Against this background the European Parliament initiated a Legislative Own-Initiative Report on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and proposed among others a Scoreboard on the basis of common and objective indicators by which foundational values can be measured. This Research Paper assesses the need and possibilities for the establishment of an EU Scoreboard, as well as its related social, economic, legal and political ‘costs and benefits’.

Human Rights Protection and Terrorism – Reflections in the Context of Strasburg Jurisprudence

The phenomenon of terrorism is one of the most asymmetrical, amorphous and hybrid threats to international security. At the beginning of the 21st century, terrorism grew to a pandemic. Ensuring freedom and security of individuals and nations has become one of the priority postulates. Terrorism steps out of all legal and analytic-descriptive standards. An immanent feature of terrorism, e.g. is constant conversion into malicious forms of violence. One of the most alarming changes is a tendency for debasement of essence of law, a state and human rights Assurance of safety in widely accessible public places and in private life forces creation of various institutions, methods and forms of people control. However, one cannot in an arbitrary way limit civil freedom. Presented article stresses the fact that rational and informed approach to human rights should serve as a reference point for legislative and executive bodies. Selected individual applications to the European Court of Human Rights are presented, focusing on those based on which standards regarding protection of human rights in the face of pathological social phenomena, terrorism in particular, could be reconstructed and refined. Strasbourg standards may prove helpful in selecting and constructing new legal and legislative solutions, unifying and correlating prophylactic and preventive actions.

Fundamental Rights and Reverse Discrimination

Reverse discrimination – whereby member states may treat their own nationals worse than nationals of other member states by invoking a “purely internal situation” in which European law does not apply – has long been a problem within the European Economic Community turned European Union. Using as a touchstone the Zambrano case, to be decided shortly, this paper argues that introducing citizenship alters the status of individuals vis-à-vis their governments, implies equality of treatment among citizens, and should eliminate reverse discrimination. Raising examples from the United States and Canada, I show how the introduction of federal rights empowered individuals and redrew the relationship between the governments of the center and the units. Citizenship limits the power of member states to treat their own nationals worse than nationals of other member states. This does not eliminate the tension between center and unit (or federal and regional; EU and member state) law but should give extra weight to former over the latter. Jurisdictional issues remain, but the rise of Union citizenship means that EU law should grow to encompass any right protected or promoted by shared citizenship.

La légitimité d'une éventuelle application de la thérapie germinale humaine : les aspects juridiques et éthiques

La thérapie germinale est une avenue médicale qui est loin de pouvoir être appliquée de manière sécuritaire et responsable car les connaissances médicales actuelles sont insuffisantes. De surcroît, l'encadrement normatif qui l'entoure est unanime et clame la non-acceptabilité de son application humaine. Certains instruments adoptent une approche rigide en la prohibant formellement, d'autres adoptent une approche flexible en demeurant ouverts à une éventuelle application. Il y a donc divergence quant à la légitimité de cette technique. La médecine moderne doit reposer sur des principes directeurs issus de diverses sources, empruntées au droit et à l'éthique. Les principes retenus pour examiner la légitimité de la thérapie germinale sont tirés, d'une part, des droits et libertés fondamentales: ce sont les principes fondamentaux de dignité, de liberté, d'égalité. D'autre part, ils sont issus des règles d'éthique de la recherche: plus particulièrement le principe de bienfaisance (nonmalfaisance) et celui du respect de la personne. La perspective d'une éventuelle application humaine de la thérapie germinale ne porte pas nécessairement atteinte aux principes fondamentaux, dépendamment du genre d'application qui est envisagé. Une application restreinte, appliquée dans des circonstances particulières et en vue de soulager ou d'éliminer certaines formes de détresses et de souffrances, pourrait être conforme aux principes qui soutiennent les droits et libertés fondamentales. La thérapie germinale soulève des questions éthiques difficiles et parfois inédites, notamment l'extension des risques aux générations futures et l'obligation d'un suivi à long terme pour des descendants qui n'auront pas eux-mêmes donné leur consentement à cette «thérapie». La thérapie germinale est présentement non acceptable mais ne devrait pas faire l'objet d'une prohibition totale.

Citizenship Deprivation: A Normative Analysis. Liberty and Security in Europe No. 82, 19 March 2015

Most critical analyses assess citizenship-deprivation policies against international human rights and domestic rule of law standards, such as prevention of statelessness, non-arbitrariness with regard to justifications and judicial remedies, or non-discrimination between different categories of citizens. This report considers instead from a political theory perspective how deprivation policies reflect specific conceptions of political community. We distinguish four normative conceptions of the grounds of membership in a political community that apply to decisions on acquisition and loss of citizenship status: i) a ‘State discretion’ view, according to which governments should be as free as possible in pursuing State interests when determining citizenship status; ii) an ‘individual choice’ view, according to which individuals should be as free as possible in choosing their citizenship status; iii) an ‘ascriptive community’ view, according to which both State and individual choices should be minimised through automatic determination of membership based on objective criteria such as the circumstances of birth; and iv) a ‘genuine link’ view, according to which the ties of individuals to particular States determine their claims to inclusion and against deprivation while providing at the same time objections against including individuals without genuine links. We argue that most citizenship laws combine these four normative views in different ways, but that from a democratic perspective the ‘genuine link’ view is normatively preferable to the others. The report subsequently examines five general grounds for citizenship withdrawal – threats to public security, non-compliance with citizenship duties, flawed acquisition, derivative loss and loss of genuine links – and considers how the four normative views apply to withdrawal provision motivated by these concerns. The final section of the report examines whether EU citizenship provides additional reasons for protection against Member States’ powers of citizenship deprivation. We suggest that, in addition to fundamental rights protection through EU law and protection of free movement rights, three further arguments could be invoked: toleration of dual citizenship in a political union, prevention of unequal conditions for loss among EU citizens, and the salience of genuine links to the EU itself rather than merely to one of its Member States.

A crise de legitimidade na democracia representativa e o desatendimento aos direitos fundamentais: um enfoque participativo-educacional

This study aims to bring reflection on the legitimacy crisis of the Brazilian representative democracy, which results in non-attendance of fundamental rights, regarding legal and social facts in light of the existing constitutional order and seeking solutions in more democratic procedures and in a more humane, critical, democratic and collaborative education. It has been an issue for some time the understanding that the authorities do not meet the basic needs of Brazilian citizens - the only way to make them autonomous and sufficiently able to conduct their lives in a competitive and globalized labor market. Such situation only worsened - as illustrated by the social movements in mid-2013 - when people took to the streets, showing a noticeable dissatisfaction with public services in general, and some other groups presenting specific complaints in those events. To find solutions or at least suggestions for the reflection of the problem found, a current approach to public authorities was necessary attempting to reveal how the constitutional order authorizes their operation and how - in fact - they act. In this endeavour, the legitimacy of power was discussed, involving the analysis of its origin, to whom it belongs and the legitimacy of deficit situations, concluding that it is only justified as it gets more democratic influence, with greater participation of people in its deliberations and decisions, with its plurality and complexity. Research carried out by official institutions was necessary to have evidence of the low level of social development of the country and the nonattendance of minimum basic rights, as well as exposure to various acts and omissions which show that all public authorities do not legitimately represent the people's interests. The competence of the Supreme Court to establish the broader scope of the remuneration policy in the public service received proper attention, presenting itself as an effective means to promote the reduction of the remuneration and structural inequality in public service and contributing to better care of fundamental rights. Also, considerations were made about the Decree 8243/2014, which established the National Policy for Social Participation (NPSP) and the National System of Social Participation (NSSP) and took other measures with the suggestion of its expansion into the legislative and judiciary powers as a way to legitimize the Brazilian democracy, considering its current stage. In conclusion, it is presented the idea expressed by the most influential and modern pedagogical trends for the creation of a participatory, solidary, non-hierarchical and critical culture since the childhood stage. This idea focuses on the resolution of questions addressed to the common good, which considers the complexity and the existing pluralism in society with a view to constant knowledge update. Knowledge update is in turn dynamic and requires such action, instilling - for the future generations - the idea that the creation of a more participatory and collaborative democracy is needed to reduce social inequality as a way to legitimize and promote social welfare, with the implementation of a policy devoted to meet the minimum fundamental rights to ensure dignity to the population.